Sharmistha Panoli Denied Bail, Calcutta HC Seeks Case Diary
The Calcutta High Court has refused interim bail to Sharmistha Panoli, a 22-year-old law student and social media influencer, who was arrested for allegedly making derogatory remarks against a religious community in connection with a video about Operation Sindoor. The incident has stirred both legal scrutiny and public debate over the limits of free speech in India.
Court Denies Bail, Seeks Full Case Records
Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, while denying bail, stressed that freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to offend religious sentiments. The judge directed the West Bengal government to produce the full case diary by the next hearing, scheduled for June 5. The Court also issued instructions that no new FIRs should be filed against Panoli based on the same facts.
Legal Team Challenges Arrest Procedure
Panoli’s lawyers argued that her arrest violated the procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), claiming the charges were non-cognisable and no prior notice was served. They further alleged that the police acted in haste and did not follow due process.
The prosecution, however, contended that multiple notices were issued to Panoli but remained unserved because she and her family had allegedly relocated to Gurugram. Authorities maintain that the arrest was legally justified due to the sensitive nature of the case and its implications for communal harmony.
Custodial Health and Safety Concerns
After her arrest on May 30, Panoli was placed in 14-day judicial custody. Her legal team has since raised alarms about her health, noting she suffers from kidney stones and is being held in unhygienic conditions. There are also serious concerns over her safety, with reports of death threats from fellow inmates prompting calls for increased protection.
The Free Speech Debate Reignited
The case has once again reignited the debate over freedom of expression versus communal sensitivity. While some argue that Panoli’s video falls under her right to dissent, others see it as an incitement in an already volatile social landscape. The court’s firm stance suggests that even digital speech is subject to limits when it comes to societal peace and inter-community respect.
With the next hearing set for June 5, the judiciary’s upcoming observations could set a precedent on how online content related to national security operations and religious sentiments is legally interpreted.
